Reply to e4

Would you suggest some openings for me to play against 1. e4?

I haven't been able to pick an opening against e4 that I really like. Right now I am flipping-flopping between c5 and e5 in most of my games. And the thing I keep running into is that I am not enjoying my (1. e4 ...) games, or I find them too repetitive, or that I find them too quiet and boring, or something of this nature (maybe it's just that it is hard for me to spot how to make play/how to move my pieces). 

Some of the moves I am considering playing in reply to 1. e4 are Nf6, Nc6 and d6. Also I have considered playing the Philidor Defense. In the recent past (earlier this year) I did play Nc6 and play the nimzovitch defense to 1.e4 but I didn't like it a lot either.

I really like openings that are unique and openings with interesting complications. I like the idea of castling on the queenside. I don't normally play gambits, but if there is one for black that really opens up his play for interesting variations I might be open to try it. But most importantly is that it is playable. I don't want to play an opening where I routinely get into a poor position and just trying to not drop material.  

Being the stellar 1350 (standard, much lower blitz) player that I am, I only know the first couple moves of these two openings (about the first 5 moves of the najdorf and the first 4 of the ruy lopez/piano game). Is it perhaps that these openings actually are already everything I want but I just don't understand them well enough to appreciate them? 

I want to be proud of my response to 1.e4 and excited to play it so I can enjoy chess more. Any help and suggestions are very welcome. 

Thanks!

Sounds like you like to be more tactical than positional. Openings where you routinely get into poor positions with just aren't good and possibly not acknowledged openings. With Nf6 you have a cramped position for a bit until you manage to attack the center and that's highly positional so I wouldn't recommend that. The Najdorf seems to fit you really well but the downside is that it is indeed extremely theoretical, but in the end it can be very rewarding. I myself play Scheveningen sicilian, it's more about understanding the system rather than memorizing entire lines like in the Najdorf, and it's more positional but it does have some tactical aspects like the Najdof. I know the Scheveningen pretty well, my results have been more than decent since I started playing it half a year ago, and should you decide to give that a go I'll be willing to get you started.
Regards. 

When I first began chess, I opened with 1...c6.

Took me 10 minutes to learn, lasted me for years.

1...e5 is your best bet.

You say you don't like cramped positions, and then you proceed to state that you plan to play either 1...Nf6 (Alekhine's Defense, an opening based on hoping White over-extends - you completely surrender the center, and are, uhm, CRAMPED!), 1...Nc6 (Same problem as the Alekhine - banking on overextension by White and otherwise, CRAMPED!), or 1...d6 (allowing White the center completely, again hoping for overextenstion, and once again, CRAMPED!).

There is nothing boring about 1...e5.  Study the main lines of the Closed Ruy Lopez, especially the Zaitsev Lines if you like tactics.  You also don't have to worry about being cramped.

Out of curiosity, what do you like to play against 1. d4?

Against 1.d4 I like to play play Nf6 and play a nimzo (sometimes king's) Indian. 

I know it is more than just a cramped position that makes me not like my current openings to 1. e4. I actually really enjoy playing a Nimzo or King's Indian against d4 even though I am likely to get into some kind of cramped position. For some reason targets and ideas are much more clear to me when I play an Indian defense than when I play the Ruy Lopez.

Yeah, +1 to all the people recommending 1...e5.

People who like the Nimzo, often will also like the Russian.

The scandinavian defense its the easiest way to play against e4 without knowing too much theory i guess

What exactly is 'the Russian'?

Petroff, I think.

Petrov/Petroff/Russian game

And the best reply is obviously 1...c5, it just depends whether you WANT to use the best response.  

I disagree, IMO the best reply is "obviously" 1...e5. 

In the words of Herm Edwards, I "play to win the game", not to 1/2-1/2.  

A) best =/= most ambitious

B) below GM level the "best" line (the Marshall Gambit) still leads to positions where both sides can play for a win.

How are we to define "best"?  Is the Ruy Lopez better than the King's Gambit?  I sincerely mean no disrespect to Bobby Fischer when I say this but I think the King's Gambit leads to a draw with best play.  However, it's much less practical than the Ruy due to the King's Gambit giving black more leeway compared to white.  So the Ruy is far more approachable and there's more freedom.

As for a reply against 1.e4 have you considered the Berlin Defense?  Bone up on the anti-Berlins such as 4.d3 and 4.Qe2 for good measure.  Also learn to play the Four Knights as black if white transposes into it:

+1 to e5. 

C5 Sicilian